Is there any need for import restrictions

What actually is the rationale for only allowing 3 imports? I'm imagining it's got a protectionist background and as a way to give jobs to locals.

But given the increasingly interconnected nature of the world we live in, I'm wondering if this is now an antiquated rule?

I was just watching some tennis, and thinking how lucky we are to have all these global stars come and play in Australia. Can you imagine if only a few global players were allowed and the rest had to be Australians? I'd imagine the standard would be lower and less people would watch. As it is, the Australian summer of tennis is a massive commercial product that draws attractive ratings.

In theory this is a reasonable post, I suppose import restrictions date back to the time pre-1989 where all leagues were predominantly comprised of local talent, before global competition was open to 'professionals'.

Obviously the NBA and now the Euroleague have no import restrictions, allowing greater talent to be stockpiled (an ex-British colleague of mine mentioned to me that if the percentage of US born players in the NBA falls below a threshold that may change, but for now a moot point). I too would like to see less import restrictions in our league, but consider that with 8 times 11 full time professionals, there are only a maximum of (obviously) 88 full time jobs for Australian hoopsters, which also includes:-three unrestricted imports.- US born naturalised players (omnipresent in the 1980s and 1990s, now down to Lisch- they vote and pay taxes so should rightly be considered Australian).- Next Star one and done players*.- Asian imports.- US raised players with Australian roots (Drake U'U, back in the day Ian Davies).- New Zealand citizens.

My guesstimate is that there are only 50 something full time jobs available for Australian born and raised players. Let's say more teams utilise the Next Stars and Asian player programs, while the number of NZ players coming into the league continues to rise, a tipping point may be reached (if not already), where a player reaches a critical age, say 16/17 like Luke Jackson, and realises there are too few jobs, let alone well paying jobs, to consider a making a career from basketball. This is not the case in Europe or for most US pros.

I like the current import restrictions provided, but the Australian NBL needs a minimum of 10, probably 12 teams to be viable, and assuming suitable passive income can be provided from the league (media rights and more), with off season employment through the NZ NBL and maybe the possibility of Asian leagues allowing Australians as local Asian imports like in soccer.

Lifting import restrictions may help reduce the amount of Teys, Hire and DKD types but it will put many off who go to see their favorite locals play.More kids will choose AFL path where there are many more opportunities available.

In 40 min games with imports already taking 80-90 of available 200 minutes on court per team per game it doesn't leave a lot for remaining 8 players.

Korea has a height restriction of 2m plus only 2 imports, most European leagues also have import quotas, I believe Germany has five but maximum of two on court at any time, though Australians that can get duel pass ports become locals.

"US born naturalised players (omnipresent in the 1980s and 1990s, now down to Lisch- they vote and pay taxes so should rightly be considered Australian)."

Why do we have so few naturalised players now?

I believe it's due to the globalisation of bball. Australia was probably a good destination back in the 80s, but less so lately, for players to make a good life for themselves. This had advantages in attracting and retaining fans. The local imports were treated like royalty back then. They earned extra payments from playing state league and working for their state league clubs. Quite a few married locals, or brought out their girlfriends and raised families here. We’re seeing the results in the next generation now. Basketball has grown as a direct consequence of this history. The imports who stayed obviously thought that their life here was better than their other options. Cal Bruton, so the legend goes, was spotted working as a Garbo throwing bins into trucks.

Now, NBL clubs struggle to recruit the best imports, and most leave after only a single season. Personally, I’d like to see the NBL try to attract imports based on the lifestyle benefits of moving here long-term. I’d prefer to see 1-2 long term imports playing for each team and adopting their town as their new home. 3 imports is ok, the next gen has only brought in 1 player so far, and the unrestricted regional players haven’t been up to scratch.

Hi Wendy, make sure you say hello to Marty for us. Even with no restrictions on imports, you wouldn't get the best because the salary on offer wouldn’t compete. You’d get second rate athletes taking jobs from locals more often than not.

Gees, there's some pretty tough competition in here - but kudos for making a late run for "Stupidest Thread of the Year" - love your persistence too not content with the op but following up with "the top two leagues in the world had no import restrictions" shows great commitment to asinine stupidity

I think if the NBL is looking to expand, then 3 imports seems reasonable as there just isn't enough talent in Australia to support more teams and maintain the current level of play. Unless they can convince more Australians to return home from college/Europe. It’s a question of $ though.